This story published by Revolver has been rocketing around Twitter for a couple of days, and my criticisms of the content of the story have earned me nothing but scorn from the ranks of the “everything about the FBI is corrupt” crowd.
I find a lot to be critical of with regard to the FBI. You can go back and look at what I wrote about the Carter Page FISA, or what I wrote about the Flynn investigation.
But the Revolver story is simply laugh-out-loud nonsense in many, many regards. The author of the Revolver story has a Ph.D. in Political Science and no legal background or training in the law that I have been able to find.
The story is extraordinarily long, and there is no way I can do a comprehensive “fisking” of all the errors in 1000-1200 words here. But there are some very significant “whoppers” that are quite easy to respond to, and should give you a clear sense that the author was out of his element in writing about federal criminal procedure.
I want to focus first on the Oathkeepers case. That seems to be the most well-known, it has attracted the most press attention, and it is a big part of the content of the Revolver story.
A central thesis/contention/allegation made by the Revolver piece is that there are individuals referred to in the indictment as “Persons One, Two, Three, Ten, etc.,” who have never been identified and never been charged, but the allegations of the indictment are such that they played significant roles in the planning and execution of the events of Jan. 6 that others are being made to stand trial for.
The author is trying to make sense of this fact — what is keeping the government from naming these people, arresting them, and bring them into court to face charges along with everyone else.
The conclusion the author draws is that they must be FBI undercover agents or confidential informants who were acting side-by-side with the charged defendants — and in some ways actually leading the operation. If they were FBI
Continue reading on RedState